Peri‐urban residential development in the Halifax region 1960–2000: magnets, constraints, and planning policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The post 1960 locational sequence of peri‐urban residential development in the Halifax city region is interpreted in terms of three sets of factors: magnets or attractors, constraints or inhibitors, and planning policies designed to direct or control development. Most peripheral housing has been suburban (i.e., on small, centrally‐serviced lots) rather than exurban (on large lots, serviced on‐site). Suburban development patterns have been strongly shaped by the 1963 Halifax Housing Survey and the 1975 Regional Development Plan, both of which promoted planned satellite communities on government land assemblies, in areas of cheap land and low development costs. After 1980 effective regional planning was phased out, which encouraged excessive large‐lot development in country districts beyond the service boundary. Magnets for country residential development operate at a variety of scales, and include highway access, elementary schools, localized site conditions, and appropriate zoning. The major regional constraint is road‐distance from the urban core, but socio‐cultural and cadastral constraints are locally important. The paper concludes with a survey of policy options to promote efficient patterns of suburban development and to curb exurban sprawl. Many of these options were recommended in earlier plans, but have lacked fiscal and political support in the last two decades. They must now be re‐assessed in a new regional plan. La séquence géographique post‐1960 du développement résidentiel péri‐urbain dans la région de Halifax est interprétée par l'entremise de trois ensembles des facteurs: les aimants ou les attracteurs, les contraintes ou les inhibiteurs, et les politiques de planification conçues pour diriger ou contrôler le développement. La plupart des logements périphériques ont été sub‐urbains (c'est‐à‐dire sur des petits lots dotés de services centraux) plutôt qu'exurbains (sur des grands lots, dotés sur place). Des configurations suburbaines de développement ont été fortement conditionnées par le Halifax Housing Survey (1963) et par le plan de développement régional (1975), tous deux ayant promu des communautés satellites prévues sur les terres de gouvernement, dans les zones de terrain bon marché avec des coûts de développement relativement bas. Après 1980, la planification régionale a étééliminée, ce qui a encouragé le développement excessif de lots de grandes dimensions dans des zones au‐delà de la limite des services. Les aimants pour le développement résidentiel exurbain fonctionnent à diverses échelles. Ils incluent notamment l'accès routier, les écoles primaires, l'état des sites locaux, et la répartition appropriée en zones. La contrainte régionale principale est la distance routière par rapport au noyau urbain, mais les contraintes socio‐culturelles et cadastrales sont localement importantes. En conclusion, l'article fournit un résumé des options politiques favorisant les configurations efficaces du développement suburbain et limitant le développement des grands lots exurbains. Plusieurs de ces options ont déjà fait l'objet de recommandations dans le cadre de plans passés, mais ont manqué de support fiscal et politique au cours des deux dernières décennies. Elles doivent maintenant être réévaluées dans un nouveau plan régional.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".